No abstract

Despite developmental maturation of interpupillary distance, refractive error, and AC/A, in a typical sample of young children the predominant dissociated position is one of exophoria.

Children with hyperopia greater than +3.5 diopters (D) are at increased risk for developing refractive esotropia. However, only approximately 20% of these hyperopes develop strabismus. This review provides a systematic theoretical analysis of the accommodation and vergence oculomotor systems with a view to understanding factors that could either protect a hyperopic individual or precipitate a strabismus. The goal is to consider factors that may predict refractive esotropia in an individual and therefore help identify the subset of hyperopes who are at the highest risk for this strabismus, warranting the most consideration in a preventive effort.

PurposeBinocular alignment typically includes motor fusion compensating for heterophoria. This study evaluated heterophoria and then accommodation and vergence responses during measurement of fusional ranges in infants and preschoolers.MethodsPurkinje image eye tracking and eccentric photorefraction (MCS PowerRefractor) were used to record the eye alignment and accommodation of uncorrected infants (n = 17; 3–5 months old), preschoolers (n = 19; 2.5–5 years), and naïve functionally emmetropic adults (n = 14; 20–32 years; spherical equivalent [SE], +1 to −1 diopters [D]). Heterophoria was derived from the difference between monocular and binocular alignments while participants viewed naturalistic images at 80 cm. The presence or absence of fusion was then assessed after base-in (BI) and base-out (BO) prisms (2–40 prism diopters [pd]) were introduced.ResultsMean (±SD) SE refractions were hyperopic in infants (+2.4 ± 1.2 D) and preschoolers (+1.1 ± 0.6 D). The average exophoria was similar (P = 0.11) across groups (Infants, −0.79 ± 2.5 pd; Preschool, −2.43 ± 2.0 pd; Adults, −1.0 ± 2.7 pd). Mean fusional vergence range also was similar (P = 0.1) for BI (Infants, 11.2 ± 2.5 pd; Preschool, 8.8 ± 2.8 pd; Adults, 11.8 ± 5.2 pd) and BO (Infants, 14 ± 6.6 pd; Preschool, 15.3 ± 8.3 pd; Adults, 20 ± 9.2 pd). Maximum change in accommodation to the highest fusible prism was positive (increased accommodation) for BO (Infants, 1.69 ± 1.4 D; Preschool, 1.35 ± 1.6 D; Adults, 1.22 ± 1.0 D) and negative for BI (Infants, −0.96 ± 1.0 D; Preschool, −0.78 ± 0.6 D; Adults, −0.62 ± 0.3 D), with a similar magnitude across groups (BO, P = 0.6; BI, P = 0.4).ConclusionsDespite typical uncorrected hyperopia, infants and preschoolers exhibited small exophorias at 80 cm, similar to adults. All participants demonstrated substantial fusional ranges, providing evidence that even 3- to 5-month-old infants can respond to a large range of image disparities.

It has been shown that infants over the age of 6 months will reach for an object in complete darkness. This experiment measured the reaching movements of 9- to 16-month-old infants and adults under several different conditions of illumination to investigate the role of vision and stored visual representations in reach control. In one condition, participants reached for an object with the lights on. In a second condition, participants reached for an object glowing in the dark (glowing condition). This allowed us to measure the effects of vision of the arm and vision of the reach space. We also looked at the effect of removing vision of the object on reach control: in the final two conditions, participants reached for an object in complete darkness (0-s dark) and in complete darkness after a 4-s delay (4-s dark). We compared the kinematics of a reach (e.g. average speed, reach straightness) between the four illumination conditions. The results showed that infants reached faster and decelerated for a shorter period of time in the dark (0- and 4-s dark) than in the light. By comparison, adults reached slower and decelerated for a longer period of time in the dark (0- and 4-s dark) than in the light. We did not find any effect of the glowing condition compared to full vision on infant reaching movements. These results suggest that infant reaching movements only become compromised when the target is not visible, whereas vision of the hand and the reach space are less significant. Without online visual feedback, an infant reach in the dark appears to be driven by feedforward mechanisms and control may be affected by an immature ability to form and/or retain visual spatial memory.